OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

security-services message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [security-services] Liberty IPR Issues (was: Liberty ID-FF 1. 2 submissionto the SSTC)

Philpott, Robert wrote on 12/3/2003, 5:10 PM:
 > But I really don't believe there is any doubt that the authors
 > really are referring to the output of the TC.

I agree that this is the end-result as far as I can tell.  However,
the wording does leave some wiggle room for the authors should the
TC take off in directions that were unexpected.  I also think that
the fact that the TC was generated to formalize an almost complete
specification made it easier to take such a risk (since the charter
was defined around the contribution -- which is different from the
situation we have here).

 > [Rob] Okay... But the SSTC can ONLY do what's defined in its
 > charter. My statement really was assuming that the SSTC sticks
 > to defining capabilities consistent with that charter.

The potential issue here, albeit very unlikely, is that the SSTC
could define things that make it impossible (or at least cost
prohibitive) for AOL to implement and still be within the

Are we likely to grant rights to something that either a) we
could not implement, or b) we would have to be a non-conforming
implementation?   I doubt it, as I doubt that many of the other
participants would.

 > RSA wants strong SAML adoption, so we're interesting in making
 > that as easy as possible (within certain corporate constraints
 > - e.g. reciprocity).

We also feel this way.

 > So we're willing to "commit to grant" reciprocal-RF licensing
 > for what we build; and that by definition has to be consistent
 > with the charter.

This is a risk that your company may be willing to take and, in
my opinion, it puts you at a potential disadvantage (even if,
god forbid, the SSTC became disfunctional and you pulled out,
the committment would remain).

AOL will stand by the statment that we are fully in support
of SAML and we have proven that we are willing to grant reciprocal
RF terms on licensing such technology.  The only thing that we
ask is that you show us what you want to do before you ask for
a grant on this derivation.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]